Delhi District Court
State vs . Noor Alam on 17 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE03, NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Noor Alam
FIR No. 544/16
PS. Bhalswa Dairy
u/s. 392/411 IPC & Section 53/116 of Delhi Police Act.
CIS No. 5297932/16
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offence : 20.10.2016
2) The name of the complainant : Pradeep S/o Sh. Ram Avtar
3) The name & parentage of accused : Noor Alam
S/o Late Sh. Atiyar
Ahmed
4) Offence Charged with : U/s. 392/411 IPC &
Section 53/116 of Delhi
Police Act.
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Convicted
7) The date of such order : 17.04.2018
Date of Institution : 20.12.2016
Judgment reserved on : 09.04.2018
Judgment announced on : 17.04.2018
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 20.10.2016, at
State Vs. Noor Alam , FIR No. 544/16, PS Bhalswa Dairy , U/s. 392/411 IPC & Section 53/116 of Delhi Police Act 1/11
about 6:45 p.m., Bhalswa Dairy, Near Bus Stop No. 101, within the
jurisdiction of PS. Bhalswa Dairy, accused Noor Alam robbed the
complainant Pradeep of his locket after wrongfully restraining him by
caught hold of him through his neck. It is further the case of
prosecution that accused was apprehended with the help of two police
officials, while accused was running away after committing robbery
and locket of the complainant was recovered from the possession of
accused. It is further the case of prosecution that the accused was
externed from the territorial limits of NCT of Delhi for a period of
one year vide order dated 14.12.2015 passed by the then Additional
Deputy Commissioner of Police, North West District, Delhi,
however, accused violated the aforesaid order as he was found within
the territorial limits of NCT of Delhi during the relevant period and
arrested in the present case.
2) After completion of investigation, chargesheet for offences
u/s. 392/411 IPC & 53/116 of Delhi Police Act was filed in the Court
against the accused Noor Alam whereupon cognizance was taken.
After complying with the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr.P.C, arguments
on charge were heard and vide order dated 24.12.2016 passed by Ld.
Predecessor, charge for offences u/s. 392/411 IPC and Section 53/116
of Delhi Police Act was framed against the accused Noor Alam to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In support of its case, the prosecution got examined six
State Vs. Noor Alam , FIR No. 544/16, PS Bhalswa Dairy , U/s. 392/411 IPC & Section 53/116 of Delhi Police Act 2/11
witnesses. PW1 Complainant Pradeep deposed that on 20.10.2016,
while he was coming back from his duty and reached at bus stand no.
101, near D Block, accused came from back side, grabbed him on his
neck and snatched his gold locket. He further deposed that after
snatching his locket, accused fled away from the spot; he raised an
alarm; meanwhile two police officials also reached at the spot and
they apprehended accused just near to the spot. He further deposed
that police officials inquired from the accused and recovered his
locket from the possession of accused; he gave complaint regarding
the incident which is Ex. PW 1/A, bearing his signature at point A.
He further deposed of the police proceedings carried out by the police
officials in his presence i.e. seizure of recovered locket vide memo
Ex. PW 1/C, arrest and personal search of accused vide memo Ex.
PW 1/D and Ex. PW 1/E respectively. He identified accused in the
Court as the same assailant who robbed him on the day of incident.
He also identified case property i.e. his recovered locket in the Court.
4) PW1 was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused. In
his crossexamination, he denied that there was a public gathering
after the incident; police officials were on their motorcycle and he
cannot tell the registration number of the motorcycle of the police
officials who reached at the spot. He further stated that locket was
seized by the police; accused was arrested at about 6:45 - 7:00 p.m.
He denied that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present
State Vs. Noor Alam , FIR No. 544/16, PS Bhalswa Dairy , U/s. 392/411 IPC & Section 53/116 of Delhi Police Act 3/11
case or that all the writing work was done at PS or that he was
deposing falsely.
5) PW2 ASI Amrit Lal, the then duty officer of PS Bhalswa
Dairy deposed of receiving a call from HC Kuldeep at about 7:45
p.m. regarding apprehension of accused, which was reduced by him
in writing in Rojnamcha vide DD No. 32 A, copy of which is Ex. PW
1/A. He further deposed of registering present FIR, copy of which is
Ex. PW 1/A1, on receipt of rukka sent by SI Rohit through Ct. Vijay.
He also deposed of making endorsement on rukka, which is Ex.
PW2/B.
6) PW 3 HC Vijay deposed that on 20.10.2016, he along with
HC Kuldeep were on patrolling duty; at about 6:40 p.m., they saw
accused was running towards them and one boy was following him,
while shouting "Chor - Chor". He further deposed that they stopped
their motorcycle; apprehended the accused; complainant reached
there and informed that the accused had robbed him of his locket. He
further deposed that from the personal search of accused, locket of
complainant was recovered from the pocket of trouser of accused; HC
Kuldeep informed at PS; SI Rohit came at the spot and accused and
case property was handed over to him. He further deposed of getting
the present FIR registered after IO handed over rukka to him. He
further deposed regarding the investigation part carried out by IO in
his presence.
State Vs. Noor Alam , FIR No. 544/16, PS Bhalswa Dairy , U/s. 392/411 IPC & Section 53/116 of Delhi Police Act 4/11
7) In his crossexamination, PW3 stated that he knew the
accused prior to the incident, who was BC of the area of PS Bhalswa
Dairy; He stated that he did not know whether IO prepared any
document prior to the registration of FIR; he did not remember the
exact time when IO recorded his statement. He denied of not joining
the investigation or that no recovery was effected from the accused or
that he was deposing falsely.
8) PW 4 HC Kuldeep, who accompanied PW 3 HC Vijay on
patrolling duty in the area on 20.10.2016 deposed on the similar lines
as deposed by PW 3 HC Vijay regarding the apprehension of accused,
recovery of locket of complainant from possession of accused and
subsequent police proceedings conducted by IO after registration of
FIR.
9) In his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW4
stated that he was patrolling on his private motorcycle; he admitted
that accused was BC of the area at that time. He denied that accused
has been falsely implicated in this case being BC of the area; IO
recorded statement of complainant; prepared seizure memo and Ct.
Vijay left for the PS. He further stated that locket was recovered from
left side pocket of trouser of accused; he did not prepare any
document regarding the incident. He denied that the accused was not
apprehended by him or that accused has been falsely implicated in
this case or that he was deposing falsely.
State Vs. Noor Alam , FIR No. 544/16, PS Bhalswa Dairy , U/s. 392/411 IPC & Section 53/116 of Delhi Police Act 5/11
10) PW/HC Sikander(numbered again as PW4) deposed that on
20.10.2016, IO SI Rohit handed over him a pullanda duly sealed with the seal of RL, which was deposited by him and made entry in register no. 19 vide entry no. 1235, copy of which is Ex. PW 4/A. In his crossexamination, he denied that no pullanda was deposited by IO or that he was deposing falsely.
11) PW 5 IO/SI Rohit deposed of reaching at the spot upon receipt of DD No. 32 A dated 20.10.2016 regarding apprehension of accused by HC Kuldeep. He further deposed of investigation part conducted by him i.e. recording of statement of complainant Ex. PW 1/A, endorsement Ex. PW 5/A thereupon, preparing site plan, seal and seizure of case property, arrest and personal search of accused, recording of statement of other witnesses, deposit of case property in Malkhana of PS Bhalswa Dairy, obtained externment order.
12) In his crossexamination, PW 5 stated that he went to the spot by his personal car; he did not collect the departure and arrival entry of HC Kuldeep and Ct. Vijay. He denied that accused has been falsely implicated in this case or that no locket was recovered from the possession of accused or that he was deposing falsely.
13) Accused admitted the genuineness of extenment order dated 14.12.2015 passed against him. His statement in this regard was State Vs. Noor Alam , FIR No. 544/16, PS Bhalswa Dairy , U/s. 392/411 IPC & Section 53/116 of Delhi Police Act 6/11 recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Extenment order is Ex. P1.
14) After prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused pleaded innocence and false implication in the present case. However, accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
15) I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
16) In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined six witnesses including complainant PW1 Pradeep, who is stated to be the victim of the incident in question. He is a star witness for the prosecution being the sole eyewitness of the incident in question. Hence, his testimony requires to be scrutinized with greatest care and circumspection in order to arrive at the conclusion whether the same is clear, cogent and reliable to bring home guilt of the accused in the present case.
17) It is well settled that even if the case against the accused hangs on the evidence of a single eyewitness, it may be enough to sustain conviction on the basis of sterling testimony of a competent, honest and trustful witness. Witnesses have to be weighed and not counted in as much as quality matters more than quantity in human affairs. Conviction can be based on the evidence of the sole State Vs. Noor Alam , FIR No. 544/16, PS Bhalswa Dairy , U/s. 392/411 IPC & Section 53/116 of Delhi Police Act 7/11 eyewitness, if his evidence inspires confidence.
18) Coming back to the case in hand, complainant PW1 Pradeep had categorically deposed about the incident in question and the manner in which accused robbed him of his locket which he was wearing at that time, after accused grabbed him by his neck and thereafter snatched his locket. He further deposed that after snatching his locket, accused fled away from the spot; he raised an alarm; meanwhile, two police officials reached at the spot, apprehended the accused and recovered his locket from the possession of accused. He also proved his statement made to the IO, which is Ex. PW1/A. He identified the accused Noor Alam in the Court as the same assailant who robbed him of his locket on that day. He also identified his recovered seized locket, when the same was produced in the Court during the course of trial.
19) Complainant PW1 Pradeep was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused at length, however, nothing material elicited from his cross examination which would affect his testimony or shake his credibility or trustworthiness. There is no previous animosity between the parties brought on record to show false implication of accused in the present case. A person who was robbed at the hand of another would never save a real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. This witness has meticulously narrated the incident and supported the prosecution case. The testimony of State Vs. Noor Alam , FIR No. 544/16, PS Bhalswa Dairy , U/s. 392/411 IPC & Section 53/116 of Delhi Police Act 8/11 complainant/PW1 Pradeep is found to be cogent, coherent and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.
20) Ld. Counsel for accused argued that no public witness was made to join the investigation. However, this argument of the Ld. Counsel for accused does not hold water. In his cross examination, PW1 categorically denied that there was a public gathering at the spot after the incident. Moreover, the nonjoining of public witnesses in each and every case has to be appreciated on the facts and circumstances proved on record. In the instant case, the victim has supported the prosecution case and it could not be demonstrated at any point that he had any prior animosity with the accused to have falsely implicated him. Complainant PW1 pradeep himself is no less than a public witness and is reliable as a public witness. I find him to be a reliable witness.
21) Moreover, PW3 HC ( the then Constable) Vijay and PW4 HC Kuldeep, who were on patrolling duty in the area and who apprehended the accused while accused was running away after committing robbery and complainant was chasing him immediately after the incident, corroborated the version of complainant and supported the prosecution case. They deposed of seeing accused was running towards them; complainant was chasing him by shouting "ChorChor"; they apprehended the accused; complainant narrated to them entire incident and thereafter the robbed locket of the State Vs. Noor Alam , FIR No. 544/16, PS Bhalswa Dairy , U/s. 392/411 IPC & Section 53/116 of Delhi Police Act 9/11 complainant was recovered from the pocket of the trouser of the accused. Other prosecution witnesses are also supporting the case of prosecution. PW2 ASI Amrit Lal, the then duty officer at PS Bhalswa Dairy, proved the DD entry 32A dated 20.10.16, copy of which is Ex. PW1/A and registration of present FIR, copy of which is Ex. PW1/A1, endorsement on rukka Ex. PW2/B. IO PW5 SI Rohit, have also supported the prosecution case with respect to the investigation part, police proceedings, preparation of various documents/memos by the IO i.e. rukka, seizure memo, site plan, arrest and personal search memo of accused. They also identified the accused and case property in the Court. Accused vide his statement dated 09.05.17 u/s 294 Cr.P.C did not dispute the genuineness of externment order dated 14.12.15 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, North west District, Delhi by which accused was ordered to remove himself from the limits of NCT of Delhi for a period of one year.
22) Thus the witnesses examined by the prosecution are supporting the case of prosecution. The witnesses examined by the prosecution on record are corroborating each other on all the material aspects. Moreover, it is well settled that minor discrepancies here and there in the testimonies of witnesses cannot amount to a contradiction. Minor discrepancies do not go to the root of the case because the minute details of the incident are subject to normal human memory decay due to lapse of time and the same does not wash away the other State Vs. Noor Alam , FIR No. 544/16, PS Bhalswa Dairy , U/s. 392/411 IPC & Section 53/116 of Delhi Police Act 10/11 incriminating material against the accused which is available on record. The accused has not examined any witness in support of his defence. The chain of evidence against the accused is complete. The incriminating material available on record, as discussed hereinbefore is reliable, trustworthy and sufficient to bring home the offence against the accused.
23) Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion and evidence available on record, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused Noor Alam beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts for offence u/s 392 IPC and for offence u/s 53/116 Delhi Police Act . Therefore, I hereby hold the accused guilty for the offence u/s 392 IPC and for offence u/s 53/116 Delhi Police Act and convict him for the aforesaid offence(s). As the accused has been convicted for the main offence u/s. 392 IPC, separate conviction for the charge for the offence u/s. 411 IPC is not required to be recorded. Order on sentence shall be announced after hearing the accused.
Announced in open court (SACHIN GUPTA) on 17th April, 2018 MM03/ North District Rohini Courts/Delhi, State Vs. Noor Alam , FIR No. 544/16, PS Bhalswa Dairy , U/s. 392/411 IPC & Section 53/116 of Delhi Police Act 11/11